Mary the Queen of Heaven

[TER]

I don't consider myself a "lapsed Catholic." That implies someone who merely stopped going to mass, but will go back. I guess you could call me an ex-Catholic, but even that isn't accurate, because I wasn't even a Catholic, other than in a nominal sense.

As for the Holy Eucharist... I should explain something, just in case you didn't realize this. In the churches I've gone to, we still take communion. It just isn't a regularly scheduled Sunday thing. It happens once or twice a month, it is a very special thing, but the way they do it is different than the Catholic church.

As for salvation... maybe someone should start a new thread on that, because it's an important topic, and I know that the original topic here was something completely different, so...

The original topic was left a long time ago my friend! We have moved on to other things! Perhaps the Virgin Mary played a role in all this as well!

I am happy that you have a communion service. I hope it brings you peace and joy.

I am going to hit the sack because I am pooped and have a very long day tomorrow. It was nice talking to you. God bless you and good night.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

http://carm.org/church

I distinguished the Earthly Church as established by the apostles from that. Sorry I was unclear.

 

[Terry1]

The original topic was left a long time ago my friend! We have moved on to other things! Perhaps the Virgin Mary played a role in all this as well!

I am happy that you have a communion service. I hope it brings you peace and joy.

I am going to hit the sack because I am pooped and have a very long day tomorrow. It was nice talking to you. God bless you and good night.

Sweet dreams TER.

 

[JohnWeeks613]

Jesus Christ was created by the Council of Nicea. The conclave of men could not even come to a conclusion of what they were to call their "savior". They ultamitly balloted down to a short list of five names. Flavious Constintinous (Constintine) Chose a name that was not on the short list balloted down to by the conclave. He chose the name of the a diety of the British druid faction who's name is Hesus, then he chose Krishina, the eastern savior, from the short list derived by the conclave. Constitine "legally" joined the the two dieties as one individuel composit to be worshiped, by the disentergrating empire, by the Roman Apothesis decree and the Official gathering and was all done so after democratic consent after a majority vote. I herard Adolf Hitler said to his inner circle (tell them a lie keep saying it and eventually they will believe it). It seems he did not invent PSYOP, he learned it some whare else.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Jesus Christ was created by the Council of Nicea. The conclave of men could not even come to a conclusion of what they were to call their "savior". They ultamitly balloted down to a short list of five names. Flavious Constintinous (Constintine) Chose a name that was not on the short list balloted down to by the conclave. He chose the name of the a diety of the British druid faction who's name is Hesus, then he chose Krishina, the eastern savior, from the short list derived by the conclave. Constitine "legally" joined the the two dieties as one individuel composit to be worshiped, by the disentergrating empire, by the Roman Apothesis decree and the Official gathering and was all done so after democratic consent after a majority vote. I herard Adolf Hitler said to his inner circle (tell them a lie keep saying it and eventually they will believe it). It seems he did not invent PSYOP, he learned it some whare else.

Not even remotely true. But nice attempt at trolling.

 

[Kevin007]

Kevin, is the ministry of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons a tradition of men or of God?

“This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;” 1 Timothy 3:1-2.


Priests? We do not need a formal Priesthood as deemed by the RCC traditions of men. What does the Bible say? It says all Believer's are Priests; the NT repeatedly teaches that all Christians are priests. When one obeys the gospel of Christ, he is added to the body of Jesus and is thereby part of God's holy priesthood. As priests, Believer's can offer spiritual sacrifices and draw close to God through Jesus, the ONLY MEDIATOR. JESUS put an end both to the Levitical priesthood and the OT law.

 

[Kevin007]

"people were still living who had been alive when Jesus Christ died on the cross. (let that sink in for a moment)."

I've let it sink in, and it's not nearly as important as you seem to think it is. Do you believe that the fact that some people were still living who were alive when Christ died on the cross somehow ensured that a Christian leader like Ignatius of Antioch would be unable to teach something that contradicted the views the apostles taught? We can go much earlier than AD 110 to see that happening.

AND the Catholics keep repeating the same mistakes and man made traditions the Pharisees did, and added legalism to it.

 

[Kevin007]

Who are they talking about in these scriptures containing the word "traditions" Kevin? Jesus the disciples and Paul are all talking about and to the Pharisee Jews of that time who continued in their OT traditions such as washing rituals and ceremonies that had to be done under the curse of the Old Mosaic Law. They are not speaking to the Christians--only the Jews still practicing their old testament traditions in place of believing that Jesus fulfilled that old law to obtain righteous before God. Jesus, His disciples and Paul are all telling you that the practice of "works, traditions, rituals and ceremonies of the Old Mosaic Law by those Jews to obtain righteousness are a curse because Jesus fulfilled that law. This is what you are not understanding clearly. That there are *TWO LAWS*--*TWO COVENANTS* AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO. One being the Old Mosaic Law of dead works and traditions and the other the New Law and Covenant of Faith and the Christian traditions that we are supposed to keep and "hold fast" to and do as the apostle Paul and Jesus tell us.

You are not understanding the difference between these two very polar opposite Laws/Covenants. This is why you're having problems reconciling NT scripture. Because Paul is not contradicting himself when he tells us to not do one tradition and to "hold fast" and do another tradition.

This is why then that the apostle Paul tells us this: 2 Thessalonians 3:6

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.



Paul is telling the difference between Christian tradition and the OT Jewish traditions there. Do you see that?

Then here again Paul tells us which traditions we are to stand fast and hold on to--being our Christian traditions and not the OT Jewish ones:


2 Thessalonians 2:15

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.






Mark 7

Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. ...

Bible search results




Matthew 15:2

Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.



Matthew 15:3

But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?



Matthew 15:6

And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.



Mark 7:3

For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.



Mark 7:5

Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?



Mark 7:8

For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.



Mark 7:9

And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.



Mark 7:13

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.



Galatians 1:14

And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.



Colossians 2:8

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.



2 Thessalonians 2:15

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.



2 Thessalonians 3:6

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.



1 Peter 1:18

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

I sure do. One is law, the other is GRACE, which you do not seem to know what that means. Catholics and others seem to want to keep the law and mix it with grace.

 

[lilymc]

“This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;” 1 Timothy 3:1-2.


Priests? We do not need a formal Priesthood as deemed by the RCC traditions of men. What does the Bible say? It says all Believer's are Priests; the NT repeatedly teaches that all Christians are priests. When one obeys the gospel of Christ, he is added to the body of Jesus and is thereby part of God's holy priesthood. As priests, Believer's can offer spiritual sacrifices and draw close to God through Jesus, the ONLY MEDIATOR. JESUS put an end both to the Levitical priesthood and the OT law.

Amen, and I'm glad you brought that up.

I don't want to offend anyone from the EO or RCC, but there's something I keep noticing that needs to be addressed. They seem to be insecure about our (ALL believers) ability to understand the scriptures, and to think that we need to rely on the priests, bishops, deacons, popes, or "saints" of the past, to interpret them for us.

That goes directly against a number of things stated clearly in the bible.

“But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don’t need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true – it is not a lie...”

1 John 2:27​

But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.

John 16:12-15​

There are numerous more scriptures like that.

However, we MUST be born again so we have the Spirit, because a natural man cannot understand spiritual matters, the bible is clear on that:

For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.

1 Corinthians 2:10-16​

Getting back to what I was saying.... What I've been noticing is that some churches seem to downplay believers in general (those who aren't church elders or in leadership positions) as if we are somehow less worthy than a priest, or pope or 7th century monk, or "church father."

No, we ALL have the Holy Spirit in us (all who are saved), we have the mind of Christ, and there is no need to be so insecure about our own ability to understand things. There is no need to always look to priests or deacons.

Of course it is good to listen to what others have to say, especially those who are strong Christians, spiritually mature and wise. But simply having the title of priest or whatever, doesn't automatically make someone always right, or truly wise.

So the whole idea of relying so much on the "church" hierarchy (earthly institution) I think goes against what the scriptures say.

We are all saints. We are a chosen people, a royal priesthood... children of God. We are not spiritually blind, as we once were.

We also have spiritual gifts. And we should (if we are walking with God, and spending time with Him, and growing spiritually) be able to recognize His voice.

My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;

John 10:27​

 

[Kevin007]

yes maam And rarely do I see or hear the importance of the Holy Spirit from them, either. The Holy Spirit is the Believer's teacher, not a priest.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

yes maam And rarely do I see or hear the importance of the Holy Spirit from them, either. The Holy Spirit is the Believer's teacher, not a priest.

That's because you were too busy with slander, distortion, and lies (and playing copypasta) to hear it! The Orthodox Church proclaims Christ as head-that the Church is His bridegroom. It has always been this way and always will be this way. Perhaps you ought to ASSume less and ask more, eh? ~hugs~

 

[heavenlyboy34]

WRT #449, for this to be true we have to ignore Acts, great swathes of the Pauline Epistles, and parts of the OT. This may be acceptable to you, but it is not to me.

 

[Kevin007]

Protestant's rely on the whole Bible.....try again.

 

[Terry1]

I sure do. One is law, the other is GRACE, which you do not seem to know what that means. Catholics and others seem to want to keep the law and mix it with grace.

There are two laws Kevin and two covenants--Old Testament covenant/Law under Moses-- and the New Testament covenant/Law under Faith/Jesus.


The New Covenant IS the Law of Faith Kevin, and it's most certainly meant to "mix with grace". You still can't understand what Jesus and the NT apostles are telling you when they distinguish between the OT Mosaic Law and the NT Law of faith.

There are *two laws--one that was practiced under the Mosaic Law and now we live under the Law of Faith and just as Paul tells you here the same. In Romans 3:27 below, Paul refers to both the Mosaic Law and the Law of Faith, explaining the difference.

Romans 3:27

Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

And here, Paul is referring to the Old Mosaic Law in 3:28 and that we're justified by the Law of faith and not the Mosaic Law of dead works:

Romans 3:28

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

 

[Terry1]

Protestant's rely on the whole Bible.....try again.

Then you should understand it as it's written. The problem here is that if the Holy Spirit were your guide instead of false teachers that you quote so often from Calvinist sites, you'd see the truth and simple basic truths-- like the fact that there are two major Laws and Covenants--not just one and that they both refer to two different types of "works" under both of those laws. One work that is justified through faith and the other work that isn't under the Mosaic Law.

You seem to believe that every time the words "Law" or "works" is mentioned in the Bible it's referring to OT law--which is wrong. I have already given you proof and evidence of this over and over--yet you continue in this false teaching without acknowledging anything I have shown you.

 

[Terry1]

yes maam And rarely do I see or hear the importance of the Holy Spirit from them, either. The Holy Spirit is the Believer's teacher, not a priest.

Then why do you quote Calvin's doctrine continually in here from Carm? The Holy Spirit isn't a protestant bishop, deacon or pastor either. See how that works?

 

[erowe1]

Circumcision was a local tradition which the Church stopped as being a requirement by the consensus of the Church leaders (the Apostles who were the protobishops).

So you believe that prior to Acts 15 the apostles themselves taught that a man was required to be circumcised in order to be saved?

 

[TER]

So you believe that prior to Acts 15 the apostles themselves taught that a man was required to be circumcised in order to be saved?

Out of all I wrote regarding the unity of the faith through the Holy Eucharist and how the Church has revolved around these Holy Gifts in its testifying to the truths, that is what you are hung up on?

The point I was making about Acts 15 is that here we see the Church confronting a challenge and then through prayer, deliberation, and consensus a new teaching and tradition was made and proclaimed in order to restore unity in faith. And AFTER that was done, as not only a visible sign of this unity but to mystically seal it through the Holy Spirit, they communed of the Holy Eucharist.

 

[erowe1]

Out of all I wrote regarding the unity of the faith through the Holy Eucharist and how the Church has revolved around these Holy Gifts in its testifying to the truths, that is what you are hung up on?

That is the question I had asked prior to that, which you were supposedly answering.

Even now, after this additional response, I still don't know your answer.

Do you really believe that prior to Acts 15 the apostles themselves taught that a man was required to be circumcised in order to be saved, as your words imply?

If not, then what change of tradition are you talking about?

By the way, the fact that I ask a question doesn't mean I'm hung up on it. And the fact that I ask it a second, and then a third time, after you had avoided giving a clear and direct answer after my first and second times asking, has more to do with your avoidance of the question than it does my being hung up on it.

 

[erowe1]

WRT #449, for this to be true we have to ignore Acts, great swathes of the Pauline Epistles, and parts of the OT. This may be acceptable to you, but it is not to me.

449 was a long post. Which part of it was contradicted by all those books of the Bible that you mention? And what are specific things they say that contradict it?